CAROL MORAN, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF LOUIS FORD, JR., DECEASED v. UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY AND COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY BOARD OF CLAIMS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
December 23, 2004; 10:00 a.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth Of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2003-CA-002094-MR
CAROL MORAN, ADMINISTRATRIX
OF THE ESTATE OF
LOUIS FORD, JR., DECEASED
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE SHEILA R. ISAAC, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 02-CI-00379
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
AND COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
BOARD OF CLAIMS
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
BUCKINGHAM, DYCHE, AND GUIDUGLI, JUDGES.
GUIDUGLI, JUDGE:
Carol Moran, Administratrix of the estate of
Louis Ford, Jr., deceased, appeals from an opinion and order of
the Fayette Circuit Court that affirmed the decision of the
Board of Claims which had dismissed her claim against the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, University of Kentucky.
We affirm.
The following findings of fact made by the Board of
Claims sets forth a concise factual history of Moran’s claim
before the Board:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.
That Louis Ford, Jr. began full-time
employment at the University of Kentucky in
the physical plant division on or about July
19, 1999.
2.
That Louis Ford, Jr. became seriously
ill in January 2000, and was placed on nopay status by the University of Kentucky on
January 7, 2000.
3.
That the University of Kentucky
terminated Mr. Ford’s employment on March 6,
2000, and attempted to notify Mr. Ford of
this termination by mailing a copy of the
termination notice to Mr. Ford at the
address on record at the University of
Kentucky. This notice was returned
undelivered and unopened to the University.
4.
That the University of Kentucky had
actual knowledge that Mr. Ford was not
living at his usual mailing address at the
time of termination on March 6, 2000, and at
the time of mailing him the termination
notice. The University of Kentucky knew
that Mr. Ford was a seriously ill patient
housed at the University of Kentucky
hospital.
5.
That on April 6, 2000, Mr. Ford’s
family received via first-class mail notice
of COBRA Continuation of Health Care
Coverage given by the University of Kentucky
as required under federal law. The notice
was dated April 3, 2000 and contained
reference to Mr. Ford’s termination on March
6, 2000. The reference to Mr. Ford’s
termination contained in the COBRA notice
was the first notice actually received by
-2-
the family of Louis Ford of the termination
of his employment by the University of
Kentucky on March 6, 2000.
6.
That Mr. Ford died on April 2, 2000.
7.
That Carol Moran, sister of the
decedent, was appointed Administratrix of
the Estate of Louis Ford, Jr. after his
death by order of the Fayette District
Court.
8.
That Mr. Ford received a “Staff
Handbook” from the University of Kentucky on
July 26, 1999.
9.
That the Staff Handbook states in part
as follows with respect to life insurance
benefits:
Regular full-time staff members
employed by the University are
insured under the Basic Life
Insurance Program for $7,500.
This insurance may be increased
optionally to a total of either 1,
2, or 3 times the employee’s basic
annual salary. The premium for
the $7,500 basic insurance is paid
by the University, while the
employee pays through payroll
deduction for optional insurance
if elected.
The life insurance is term
insurance and no cash values
accumulate. This insurance
terminates at retirement or upon
separation from University
employment, whichever is earlier.
Employees may, at the time of
employment termination or
retirement and for a period of 30
days thereafter, convert part of
all of their group insurance to an
individual plan. No evidence of
insurability is required for this
-3-
guaranteed coverage privilege.
Rates are determined by the
company and will differ
considerably from the University
group rate.
10. That the University Staff Handbook
contains the following disclaimer in bold,
capital font:
THIS HANDBOOK EXPLAINS UNIVERSITY
HUMAN RESOURCES POLICY AND
PROCEDURES IN GENERAL TERMS. IN
CASE OF ANY CONFLICT OR ANY
DIFFERENCE IN INTERPRETATION
BETWEEN THIS HANDBOOK AND THE
HUMAN RESOURCES POLICY AND
PROCEDURE ADMINISTRATIVE
REGULATIONS, FORMERLY KNOWN AS
STAFF PERSONNEL POLICY AND
PROCEDURE ADMINISTRATIVE
REGULATIONS, THE LATTER IS THE
CORRECT AND FINAL AUTHORITY.
11. That the University Human Resources
Policy and Procedure Administrative
Regulations with respect to life insurance
policies, mailed to University employees in
1999, states as follows:
When life insurance ceases because
that part of the group contract
discontinues as to your employee
class, and insurance on the life
of the person has been in force
under the group contract for at
least 5 years in a row prior to
such discontinuance, the amount
that ceases less the amount of any
group life insurance for which the
person becomes eligible within 31
days of discontinuance may be
converted to an individual policy.
The maximum amount that can be
converted by each person in any
event is $2,000.
-4-
12. That Mr. Ford was a full-time employee
of the University of Kentucky, eligible for
group life insurance benefits, for a period
less than eight (8) months prior to his
termination.
Based upon these findings of fact, the Board of Claims
determined that Moran would not be entitled to any award of
pecuniary damages under any theory of actionable negligence.
The Board dismissed, with prejudice, Moran’s claim.
Moran
appealed that decision to the Fayette Circuit Court.
On appeal, the circuit court held:
The claim presented by [Moran] to the
Commonwealth of Kentucky Board of Claims was
that the University acted negligently by
failing to notify him of his termination
thereby causing him to lose the $7,500.00
life insurance policy benefit. [Moran]
challenges the Board of Claims finding of
facts and conclusions of law which stated
that the University was not negligent and
that Mr. Ford was not eligible for the life
insurance coverage.
The Board found that even if it were
established that the University owed Mr.
Ford a duty [to] notify him and in turn
breached such duty, Mr. Ford was still
ineligible to receive such benefits in light
of the University’s established policies.
University policy required Mr. Ford to be
employed in a class eligible for group life
insurance benefits for a period of five
years prior to conversion of the life
insurance to an individual plan. In its
findings of fact, the Board found that Mr.
Ford was employed in the eligible class for
a period of less than eight months prior to
his termination. Therefore, Mr. Ford was
ineligible to convert the group life
insurance policy to an individual plan
-5-
regardless of whether or not he received
actual notice.
[Moran] argues nonetheless that such
policy was not in the Staff Handbook [Mr.
Ford] received upon his employment with the
University. However, the Board of Claims
found that the Handbook included a
disclaimer which stated that if any conflict
arose between what was set forth in the
Handbook and any subsequent Human Resources
Policy and Procedure Administrative
Regulations, the latter would control. The
latter was in fact mailed to University
employees in 1999.
The standard of review for Board of
Claims suits is found in K.R.S. 44.140 which
provides that a decision is “conclusive if
there exists substantial evidence to support
the findings…of the board. The Board acts
as a fact finder and those findings, if
supported by substantial, competent
evidence, are conclusive. Pemberton v.
Commonwealth, 298 S.W.2d 487 (Ky. 1966).
Since there is substantial evidence to
support the Board’s findings and conclusions
here, its decision must stand.
For the foregoing reasons, the decision
of the Board of Claims is hereby AFFIRMED.
On appeal to this Court, Moran presents two arguments.
First, she contends that the University had actual knowledge of
Mr. Ford’s location and negligently failed to notify him of his
termination.
Next, she argues that the University presented no
proof that Mr. Ford received the updated handbook with the
different life insurance provisions that required five years of
employment before one was eligible for the conversion benefit.
Unfortunately for Moran, neither of the arguments affect the
-6-
outcome of this case.
eligibility.
The issue is not one of notice but one of
While the Board clearly indicated that the
University may have breached its duty to notify Mr. Ford of his
termination, it held that pursuant to University policies and
regulations Mr. Ford was not entitled to convert his life
insurance policy upon his termination.
The University did
present substantial evidence by introducing its Exhibit #1,
entitled Your Group Plan University of Kentucky Term Life, ADDC
and Group Accident Plan.
Included in Exhibit #1 were the terms
quoted by the Board of Claims relative to the five years of
continuous employment to be eligible to convert the group life
insurance benefit.
In that Mr. Ford was employed by the
University for less than eight months prior to his termination,
he was not eligible to convert the group insurance policy to an
individual policy.
Moran can show no injury to the estate nor
can she demonstrate that the estate was entitled to any award
under any theory of actionable negligence.
As the circuit court correctly noted in its order
“[t]he standard of review for Board of Claims suits is found in
KRS 44.140 which provides that a decision is conclusive if there
exists substantial evidence to support the findings...of the
board.
The Board acts as a fact finder and those findings, is
supported by substantial, competent evidence are conclusive.
Pemberton v. Commonwealth, 398 S.W.2d 487 (Ky., 1966).”
-7-
We
believe, as did the circuit court, that there is substantial
evidence to support the Board’s finding and conclusions.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the opinion and
order of the Fayette Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
J. Ross Stinetorf
Heather Pack Howell
Lexington, KY
R. Bruce Lankford
Lexington, KY
-8-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
